Moral Responsibility

Last week in class, we discussed in small groups how many children we'd all like to have, if any. Author and environmentalist, Bill McKibben originally talked about how he and his wife agreed they could not have children on the basis that population growth is leading to an increased strain on the environment. Later on, he goes on to analyze the possibility of having just one child and researches deeply into this topic. In the article, "People, Nature and Ethics," by Paul Wapner, the 'future generation' is discussed again, and it really made me think back to our small group discussions we had about family size. I've always wanted to adopt children and have never thought it a bad thing to want to do an act so selfless. After reading Wapner's article, my views on my potential future family have been strengthened and reaffirmed. 

In his article, Wapner discusses an ethical dimension of environmentalism that is lacking in most, if not all the dimensions of environmental issues. Environmental displacement happens across time and space with two aspects, resources and pollution, that are being displaced.  Displacement involves, "Shifting the experience of environmental harm... postponing or evading harmful effects of environmental degradation" (Warper, 357). 

The section that caught my attention the most in regards to future generations was titled "Displacement Across Time." The argument made was that the present generation was 'solving' the current environmental problems (such as the question of how to dispose of nuclear waste) by displacing it to a future time. The theory being that later, someday the problem will be cured (this also stretches to the assumption people are constantly making that technology keeps improving and will some day solve all our problems). Warper states that people living in the present see themselves as the most worthy by not addressing their own environmental impacts as a result of their decisions they may make, and in doing so, they discount the lives of the future generation. When I read this assumption, I thought back to fifth grade when I learned about endangered species and extinction. I remember learning about a particular species of bird that existed in what is now the United States. This species became extinct because the newly settled American colonists used to use the birds as target practice. I grew really upset about how selfish the past generation had been and how myself and my generation was deprived of seeing these birds we can only now read and learn about in school. Also from this assumption, I do not understand how anyone could want to bring any additional lives onto this planet if our and past generations don't care about the next! Displacing toxic wastes to a future time and another location only delays the problem and eventually it will catch up to us! I know I would not like to suffer from cancer one day because I grew up in an area that was impacted by polluted air or was near toxic wastes that I could do nothing about, so why would I want to bring a future generation into this world who would have a higher chance of living in an area affected by this. Also, there has been such an increase in diseases that have emerged since I was born, I can only imagine how many more diseases will come into existence or diseases thought to be at bay (such as malaria) will spread due to global warming. I cannot imagine myself wanting to live in such a threatening world and would not want to pass this legacy along. I find it my moral responsibility not only to NOT have children due to the increased environmental strain, but because I do not want the future generation to have to suffer any more than this world's population already is thanks to our predecessors.